June 15, 2012

TEL AVIV – A few dozen illegal migrants from a handful of African countries were arrested by the Israeli authorities earlier this week, just as the country was getting ready to deport several thousand other illegal migrants. Government action against illegal immigration is finally noticeable; promises made a long time ago are finally being fulfilled. A crisis has been averted — or so the government would like Israelis to believe.

The numbers are just too high. More than 50,000 illegal African migrants live here, according to official estimates. One recent report says that southern Tel Aviv, with a population of about 100,000, is 25 percent illegal migrants. And these figures seem to be growing, according to Israel’s immigration authority.

Many migrants come to Israel legally and overstay without a visa extension. But the real problem, which is now in the spotlight, is with the migrants who come into the country illegally through weak spots in the southern border ...

Even when the migrants are caught at the border, they are often released into the country for a lack of better options. Israel is not well prepared for this wave of Africans. The country does not have many places to hold illegal migrants, so in most cases they are left to roam freely.

They are, by and large, young, poor, unemployed men. They stay awake late into the night, often drinking on the streets. They make many locals – rightly or wrongly – feel insecure. These migrants have been coming for years, but only recently have Israeli citizens decided they’ve had enough.

A couple of weeks ago, residents in southern Tel Aviv started demonstrating. Why now? That’s a good question. Why not a year ago, or half a year ago are even better ones. I don’t know.

Some of the protests became violent and ugly, with racial overtones or outright racism. A handful of elected officials poured oil on the fire by making harsh comments, calling the migrants “a cancer,” blaming them for spreading AIDS, and worsening an already delicate situation.

The authorities finally took action – resulting in the arrests this week. The government is now hastily striving for a coherent policy. A fence along the Egyptian border is already up, but a second fence on the Jordanian border to the east is under consideration. More deportations are in the works. And there is talk of building a tent city to accommodate those who cannot be currently deported.

It is heartbreaking, even shocking, to see Israelis making racist comments and taking actions that smack of hate. It is also unsurprising. Israel is a small country, obsessed with the need to guard its Jewish majority. It is also too small to absorb so many poor illegal migrants.

For the last two weeks Israelis have been debating the many complications of this problem. Questions of morality are naturally raised, coupled with considerations of the unique history of their country with its roots in immigration and persecution of the Jews. These issues have no easy solutions, and can perhaps be summed up in one question: Can a very small country have a very big heart?

The answer, sadly, is no. Not always, anyway. Given our history, demography, current political circumstances and values, a serious effort to block illegal immigration from Africa – or any other region — is essential. It is essential if we want Israel to remain Jewish. It is essential if we want Israel to remain prosperous.

Israel can and should absorb a reasonable number of refugees, but it should not be expected to be the ultimate destination for Africans escaping poverty and war. Deportation is necessary to convince the next potential waves of migrants that coming to Israel would not be wise.

Searches and arrests, erecting of border fences, bolstering of guard units, kicking out poor migrants – all these scenes will now become a chapter in Jewish history. Israel has no other choice.

Shmuel Rosner, an editor and columnist based in Tel Aviv, is senior political editor for The Jewish Journal.

Africans have to flee those bad neighborhoods they born in where they are plagued by war, crime, squalor, few jobs, poor education, lack of sanitation, and disease. Surely Israelis understand that, don't they?

The article was published in the New York Times i.e. by the supposedly "American" intelligentsia. This intelligentsia will publish articles like this from a foreign country but it won't publish similar articles from people like Peter Brimelow.

Exactly. And the corollary is, that not even Big Countries can have "a big heart." Last time I looked the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, etc are not exactly rolling in money and empty lands.

Everyone is a small country now. And for the foreseeable future. As STeve pointed out, about half a billion Africans would like to move here.

You don't fight this "have a big heart" stuff with PC namby pambyism. You fight it with nationalism, pure and simple. The only proven cohesive stuff that produces wealthy, high-trust societies. Yes taken to extremes it can be bad, so can exercise and vitamins.

America, on the other hand, with a mere 6% or so illegal can obviously afford to be much more generous. Up to 20 or 30% at least, you reckon.

It is essential if we want Israel to remain prosperous.

Such lamentable ignorance. He obviously hasn't heard the good news yet. Not only do Africans bring "social buoyancy," according to one James Rose writing in Australia's The Age newspaper, the economic case for them "needs to be made more forcefully."

Finally, one western nation is showing some backbone and is actually implementing intelligent and eminently morally justifiable policies against people it rightly terms as 'infiltrators'. A principle of law and morality that has somehow been quietly subsumed snce 1945 ie that nation states have the absolute, non-negotiable and unimpeachable right to keep out and eject those it chooses to keep out.

Now may be a good time to revisit neocon warmonger VDH's Two Californias:(...)California coastal elites may worry about the oxygen content of water available to a three-inch smelt in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, but they seem to have no interest in the epidemic dumping of trash, furniture, and often toxic substances throughout California’s rural hinterland. Yesterday, for example, I rode my bike by a stopped van just as the occupants tossed seven plastic bags of raw refuse onto the side of the road. I rode up near their bumper and said in my broken Spanish not to throw garbage onto the public road. But there were three of them, and one of me. So I was lucky to be sworn at only. I note in passing that I would not drive into Mexico and, as a guest, dare to pull over and throw seven bags of trash into the environment of my host.

In fact, trash piles are commonplace out here — composed of everything from half-empty paint cans and children’s plastic toys to diapers and moldy food. I have never seen a rural sheriff cite a litterer, or witnessed state EPA workers cleaning up these unauthorized wastelands. So I would suggest to Bay Area scientists that the environment is taking a much harder beating down here in central California than it is in the Delta. Perhaps before we cut off more irrigation water to the west side of the valley, we might invest some green dollars into cleaning up the unsightly and sometimes dangerous garbage that now litters the outskirts of our rural communities.

We hear about the tough small-business regulations that have driven residents out of the state, at the rate of 2,000 to 3,000 a week. But from my unscientific observations these past weeks, it seems rather easy to open a small business in California without any oversight at all, or at least what I might call a “counter business.” I counted eleven mobile hot-kitchen trucks that simply park by the side of the road, spread about some plastic chairs, pull down a tarp canopy, and, presto, become mini-restaurants. There are no “facilities” such as toilets or washrooms. But I do frequently see lard trails on the isolated roads I bike on, where trucks apparently have simply opened their draining tanks and sped on, leaving a slick of cooking fats and oils. Crows and ground squirrels love them; they can be seen from a distance mysteriously occupied in the middle of the road.(...)Do diversity concerns, as in lack of diversity, work both ways? Over a hundred-mile stretch, when I stopped in San Joaquin for a bottled water, or drove through Orange Cove, or got gas in Parlier, or went to a corner market in southwestern Selma, my home town, I was the only non-Hispanic — there were no Asians, no blacks, no other whites. We may speak of the richness of “diversity,” but those who cherish that ideal simply have no idea that there are now countless inland communities that have become near-apartheid societies, where Spanish is the first language, the schools are not at all diverse, and the federal and state governments are either the main employers or at least the chief sources of income — whether through emergency rooms, rural health clinics, public schools, or social-service offices. An observer from Mars might conclude that our elites and masses have given up on the ideal of integration and assimilation, perhaps in the wake of the arrival of 11 to 15 million illegal aliens.

Again, I do not editorialize, but I note these vast transformations over the last 20 years that are the paradoxical wages of unchecked illegal immigration from Mexico, a vast expansion of California’s entitlements and taxes, the flight of the upper middle class out of state, the deliberate effort not to tap natural resources, the downsizing in manufacturing and agriculture, and the departure of whites, blacks, and Asians from many of these small towns to more racially diverse and upscale areas of California.(...)

You don't fight this "have a big heart" stuff with PC namby pambyism. You fight it with nationalism, pure and simple. The only proven cohesive stuff that produces wealthy, high-trust societies. Yes taken to extremes it can be bad, so can exercise and vitamins.

The article was published in the New York Times i.e. by the supposedly "American" intelligentsia. This intelligentsia will publish articles like this from a foreign country but it won't publish similar articles from people like Peter Brimelow.

This has nothing to do with Israel being a foreign country. The NYT's take on the recent Swiss elections that focused on immigrants was identical to kind of schtick they're running in the US. Yet Switzerland is both foreign and "small" just like Israel. Why give Israel a pass for being small and foreign yet not grant the same treatment to Switzerland, which is small and foreign too? I wonder why, wonder wonder why.

The article was published in the New York Times i.e. by the supposedly "American" intelligentsia. This intelligentsia will publish articles like this from a foreign country but it won't publish similar articles from people like Peter Brimelow.

This has nothing to do with Israel being a foreign country. The NYT's take on the recent Swiss elections that focused on immigrants was identical to kind of schtick they're running in the US. Yet Switzerland is both foreign and "small" just like Israel. Why give Israel a pass for being small and foreign yet not grant the same treatment to Switzerland, which is small and foreign too? I wonder why, wonder wonder why.

I am getting tired of American media treating the USA one way on immigration and Israel in another. I support Israel's right to maintain its character, first world wages and living standard, political institutions and social safety net for its people. But I also support the same for the US and other Euro nations. This double talk by OUR media in regards to this issue reminds me of a great line in The Outlaw Josey Wales.

Perhaps Israel could encourage the Africans to continue migrating towards Europe, by dumping them over the Lebanese and Syrian borders. Excuse me - by providing transit to the next intermediate destination in their journey to Europe.

But the real problem, which is now in the spotlight, is with the migrants who come into the country illegally through weak spots in the southern border ...

How many come in legally? Does anyone know? I'd be surprised if the numbers were "sufficient" for American Jewry. Given what they seem to prefer here in America, I mean.

It is heartbreaking, even shocking, to see Israelis making racist comments and taking actions that smack of hate. It is also unsurprising. Israel is a small country, obsessed with the need to guard its Jewish majority. It is also too small to absorb so many poor illegal migrants.

This reminds me of Jenner's speech to the crowd after he murders Nicodemus in The Secret of NIMH; "one way we'll go to thorn valley, but not now." Cue the regretful countenance.

The "small country" thing is special pleading. There's no reason a small country can't be 45% "minorities," just like the USA. That's the great thing about percentages; they scale perfectly.

Note how "obsessed with the need to guard its Jewish majority" is just a fact. Not something that must be changed, as it was with White folks before the Culture of Critique was erected.

For the last two weeks Israelis have been debating the many complications of this problem.

I.e., "how do we spin this? Most of the Jewish nation lives in the diaspora; these things must be handled delicately."

Questions of morality are naturally raised, coupled with considerations of the unique history of their country with its roots in immigration and persecution of the Jews.

In other words, more special pleading. Jews don't have more of an obligation to take in these immigrants, given all their moralizing on the topic in the Holocaust Narrative and the "Civil Rights" Narrative and the "Nation of Immigrants" Narrative, oh no; they have less, don't you see?

These issues have no easy solutions, and can perhaps be summed up in one question: Can a very small country have a very big heart?

And there's the talking point; wrap the obfuscation about percentages (and how perfectly they scale) up in a pithy statement or question.

Wrong. The answer is yes. Israel can have just as big a heart as America, proportionally speaking. In fact, if anything, they should have a proportionally bigger heart, given Jewish history.

It is essential if we want Israel to remain prosperous.

We already know that's nonsense. Immigration = prosperity.

It is essential if we want Israel to remain Jewish.

That's a lot like wanting America (or England or France) to remain White. Or like wanting America (or England) to remain White Protestant, if you prefer.

Israel can and should absorb a reasonable number of refugees

Precisely. And Jewish advocacy in the USA has shown us that "reasonable" a total minority population north of 45% (since Jews still don't countenance any majoritarian talk here in the USA). Ballpark, Israel has room for 1.75m Africans. And they're whining about a measly fifty thousand migrants.

but it should not be expected to be the ultimate destination for Africans escaping poverty and war. Deportation is necessary to convince the next potential waves of migrants that coming to Israel would not be wise.

Now, I'm tempted to say that African migrants should take a hint from Israel's racist outbursts and understand that Israel is a racist country, and not a welcoming destination, to say the least. But that argument is "racist" according to American Jewry, so we can't use that one. Well, I'm stumped. And until we can come up with a good alternative, I think the only way to save the Jewish reputation is to start bringing a LOT more African and Asian migrants into Israel.

Israel has no other choice.

Right. Israel has no choice to be racist. Just as America has no choice but to be anti-racist. See how that works?

Every once in a while Whiskey goes off the res. It's a long wait between lapses. I once saw a very anti-Mexican comment to a news article about immigration and I'm 99% sure it was Whiskey, though the handle was different.

Note that even in Israel nothing happened until people started protesting. People protested, politicians listened.

Help us out, here. How many people protested? That way, when we protest in similar proportions, and our politicians either ignore us or condemn us (rather than make blatantly racist, xenophobic statements in our favor), we can tell you to STFU.

Sickening to see Jewish hypocrisy on display. You can tell by his rationalizing tone that this same Jew would happily lecture Americans about their wealth and need to be inclusive and generous. I sincerely hope Israel comes to a bad end after American power declines.

"Note that even in Israel nothing happened until people started protesting. People protested, politicians listened."

Yes, but when they protested (that would actually be rioted), the media and the elite "understood." Here they would be demonized, arrested, charged with hate crimes, and convicted even before the trial. And if the government lost the trial, they'd try 'em again.

There is a concensus here in the Steve-o-sphere that every ethnic group deserves its own ethnic homeland where that ethnic group can live free from large numbers of non ethnic group members.

Of course there will be some countries that are multi ethnic as well

There are many types of Euro Americans that might want to live in a nearly all Euro American homeland. First of all, Euro Americans that want to know that their children and grandchildren will marry only other Euro Americans and procreate with only other Euro Americans needs to live in a nearly all Euro American homeland. For obvious reasons, if you raise your children in a diverse neighbhorhood you will wind up with mixed great grandchildren, there is almost a certainty of that

Also, if you have children born with an IQ under 100, chances are those children will compete with low IQ immigrants for jobs. So those people here in the steve o sphere that expect to have children born with IQ under 100 also should live in the Euro American homeland.

There are plenty of other categories of Euro Americans that might want to live in the Euro American homeland.

But can we shift the discussion to the here and now?

Has anyone else on this blog been to St George Utah? St George is a nearly all Euro America bastion of traditional values. It seems to me that St George is almost identical to what the hypothetical Euro American homeland would look like.

Again, I bear no malice to those Euro Americans that want to live in a polyglot non traditionalist country. I just want to discuss the outlines of the proposed Euro American homeland

Israelis will not do those jobs. Between the welfare state, exemptions given to the large number of religious Jews (orthodox in the US), and huge subsidies from foreigners there is no one to work in hotels and many other professions. So African Christians, among other non Muslim immigrants, are needed to do it. So it is not really comparable to the US. A financial crisis (foreign aid spigot were cut off, or just too many on the dole) there might be an incentive for poor Israelis to do the jobs.

Matt said:"There are just three decently powerful countries on earth right now that are impervious to guilt manipulation: China, Russia, and Israel.

All of them have far more sensible policies than average, but I wouldn't want to live in any of them."

Why wouldn't you want to live in Russia or China? Because the always completely trustworthy and never, ever, remotely dishonest American mainstream media told you that they were hellholes?

I've been to both, and neither was remotely a hellhole. Sure, you can have your life and career utterly ruined by publicly going against the orthodoxy of the ruling party, but that's no different than here really, as James Watson and John Mearsheimer (among many others) found out a bit too late.

SINGAPORE—Australian coal magnate Nathan Tinkler, the resource-rich country’s wealthiest person under the age of 40, will relocate to Singapore, joining a notable list of other foreign tycoons moving to the affluent city-state.__________

You will note that as far as I know there is no other nation in the world that sets government policy as openly and honestly according to the dictates of HBD.

Singapore's immigration policy is to invite high IQ people from around the world to become citizens. Average IQ people are just not ever allowed to become citizens. I can't think of any other country that is run this way.

Average to below average IQ females are allowed in as guest workers, but if they become pregnant they are immediately kicked out of the country.

In America? The voters don't care. No one ever got elected dogcatcher anywhere in the US on the anti-immigration platform. Incentives matter.

US has a first-past-the-post voting system, which means that candidates generally have to run on a full menu of issues. But Lou Barletta is a clear-cut example of someone who won office because of his stance on immigration.

I pride myself on being at least in the 90th percentile for media skepticism (and on certain days I think it's at least the 95th!), but that doesn't obligate me to believe that the Russians or the Chinese would be pleasant neighbors.

The Chinese way of looking at the world doesn't float with me (I live in a campus town and my opinion is formed by that), and Moscow is both expensive and dangerous. Yes, a part of me is pleased to hear about the courts banning "Pride" Parades and whatnot, but it's still a dying nation of alcoholic, crime-ridden jackasses. Dangerous, unpleasant, costly, and full of the nouveau riche = count me out.

I get that they've got architecture and a fine literary tradition, but an expat can hardly be expect full immersion in any of that.

The comment about two Californias was interesting. Larry Auster coined the term 'anarchy-tyranny' for exactly this situation; where the the meek and concientious are over-regulated, while the thugs... well, the thugs do what thugs do.

Now we see this reaching a new level where the conscientious have fled, thugs are thugs, and the plebs are lawless.

Is it not odd the producers for HBO happen to have a bunch of GW Bush latex/mache fake heads lying around... I noticed the protesters in Pakistan were not burning the best quality effigies of Barack--perhaps that supply is better controlled

Interesting that even in this pro-immigration-enforcement article, the titular metaphor is still the heart (the source of life/the literary seat of emotion). The question seems to be "what should our heart towards non-citizens be?" Or "how should we feel about them?"

A better sub-metaphor for the role of borders within the body politic would be that of human skin: it keeps out what needs kept out, while helping to hold everything inside in place.

The country accepts only high-IQ, or high-income people as potential citizens. But note that high income does not necessarily mean high IQ, and vice versa. And there are rumors of immigrants from PRC getting rich by less than savory methods...

Secondly, even without being citizens, foreigners are still allowed to work here with the same tax rates and many of the same amenities as citizens. This still puts the left half of the bell curve of the native citizenry in Singapore in direct competition with much cheaper labor from the generally impoverished region. They have difficulty finding employment, with all the social consequences that entails.

Finally, for a male, application for citizenship below a certain age (40) carries with it the burden of national service, a military draft of two years duration. Given that choice, how many immigrants would make that sacrifice? Far smarter for them to stay as non-citizens but continue working in Singapore and enjoy virtually all the perks and benefits of a citizen without paying anything extra.

So in the future, we should be even more, shall I say, nuanced. There's illegal immigrants, guest workers, then new citizens. The Singapore experience will tell you that you need to be careful with the guest worker policy.

A number of Jewish organizations and individuals have praised Obamafor deferring the deportation of young illegal immigrants. Theseinclude Mark Hetfield, Interim president and CEO of the HebrewImmigrant Aid Society, which has spoken out publicly in support of the DREAM Act; Rabbi David Saperstein, president of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Nancy Kaufman, CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW); National Jewish Democratic Council president and CEO David Harris and chair Marc Stanley; and the Anti-Defamation League.

Interesting that even in this pro-immigration-enforcement article, the titular metaphor is still the heart (the source of life/the literary seat of emotion). The question seems to be "what should our heart towards non-citizens be?" Or "how should we feel about them?"

I think the point is to (a) help Jews feel good about themselves even while they (b) support the sort of policies which they are accustomed to regarding as evil and Nazi-like.

"We're a wonderful and big-hearted people, but we don't have any choice".

The comment about two Californias was interesting. Larry Auster coined the term 'anarchy-tyranny' for exactly this situation; where the the meek and concientious are over-regulated, while the thugs... well, the thugs do what thugs do.

Now we see this reaching a new level where the conscientious have fled, thugs are thugs, and the plebs are lawless.

This is what a libertarian dictatorship looks like. Certain freedoms (like "the freedom to live anywhere in the world you want to") are hypertrophied, while others (like civic freedom and "rule of law") are atrophied.

Another remarkable thing about this NYT article: it has a comment section, but two days after it was published online there are still no comments. Really? Nobody felt moved to comment on it? Looks like the time doesn't want people's views on this matter to be known.

I'm waiting for some of our Israeli-centric friends to explain why the radical difference in the way the elite media is covering Israel's immigration problem compared to how it covers immigration in the USA and Europe.

A question for all of the commenters here assuming Shmuel Rosner is a hypocrite for advocating immigration restriction in Israel: Do you know if he advocates the opposite for the US? If not, then maybe it's your own prejudice fueling claims of his hypocrisy. Why not find out the facts first?

"A question for all of the commenters here assuming Shmuel Rosner is a hypocrite for advocating immigration restriction in Israel: Do you know if he advocates the opposite for the US? If not, then maybe it's your own prejudice fueling claims of his hypocrisy."

Do you do standup comedy? It's not about the Jews, your lying eyes, or 50+ years of history listening to these same old lines of argument!!! It's all about Shmuel Rosner!

A question for all of the commenters here assuming Shmuel Rosner is a hypocrite for advocating immigration restriction in Israel: Do you know if he advocates the opposite for the US? If not, then maybe it's your own prejudice fueling claims of his hypocrisy. Why not find out the facts first?

It's not a question of personal hypocrisy; it's a question of group hypocrisy.

Orthodox Jewish law holds that every Jew is responsible for the actions of every other Jew because Jewish morality is national (collective):

To this day orthodox Jewish ethics has remained in its essence national rather than individual, and this accounts, incidentally, for the otherwise incomprehensible legal theorem of the common responsibility of all Jews for the deeds of each.--Salo Wittmayer Baron (1895–1989). [From page 10 of Baron's "A social and Religious History of the Jews", published by Columbia University Press, 1957 --ISBN 0231088388, 9780231088381.]

Yale University Press calls Baron "a preeminent scholar who revolutionized the study of Jewish history during his lengthy tenure at Columbia University":

Nobody felt moved to comment on it? Looks like the time doesn't want people's views on this matter to be known.NPR is worse - they will open comments then quietly prune them after closing them to make it look like most people favored whatever SWPL thing they were advocating.

how about starring in porn.btw, how would liberals react if a politician detailed the nature of gay sex involving the anus? or details of what abortion does to the unborn? I'll bet libs will want him/her censured.

"Albert Sabin said...A question for all of the commenters here assuming Shmuel Rosner is a hypocrite for advocating immigration restriction in Israel: Do you know if he advocates the opposite for the US? If not, then maybe it's your own prejudice fueling claims of his hypocrisy. Why not find out the facts first?"

He could be among the 0% of Jewish mainstream media pundits who advocate immigration restriction.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.